Please login or join to subscribe to this thread
Was this judgment aimed at ALL projects or just existing development ones?
I can see the challenges with the first and third "crime" but the second does not seem bad.
In general, more could be done to ensure the right PM approach is applied to the right projects and I would agree that lessons can only be said to be learned if we actually apply them to progressively improve project outcomes.
Interesting your question
Thanks for sharing
We agree with 2 of the 3 points mentioned
I completely disagree with the point: "They are narrowly conceived, too goal-achievement oriented, and excessively rigid"
It reminded me of the dialogue between Alice and the Cat
They are refering to all projects. The development is applyed in the context of develop a new perspective.
Thanks for sharing your opinion.
To provide a little more context :
They highlight the limitations of conventional project management practices dominated by Management by Objectives principles. Development experience also stresses the promise of adaptable approaches to project design and management in complex and turbulent operating environments and it suggests that projects conceived as experiments can contribute to sound decision making at the higher plane of strategy formulation and policy-making.
I get what you are saying when I contextually shift to the “scientific method” basis of thought. I agree that projects “conceived as experiments” contribute to sound decision making, but that (for me) is for when the problem space relates to interrogating Theories and Conjectures.
Does this realm relate to the project management space that we normally discuss on this platform; yes and no. Both spaces require an agile mindset towards progressive improvements, but the primary delineation between the two is this, “Is Feasibility in Question?”
So, if I’m understanding your deeper position, I will say that I agree with this mindset when the concern relates to questions of feasibility. For example: In my world, when feasibility is in question we do NOT structure a project, why, because the structures (accountability and otherwise) do not serve to assist the endeavor. However, we will create a formal or informal “skunkworks” to interrogate the question.
"According to an international development perspective:" ( not my opinion, just asking about)
Probably there are some confusion in what I wrote , this is not my position, but the position of an international work group about project management that I read in an article. I have my own ideas and I was curious to know what experienced project managers members of this social network thought about this conclusions, not to agree with me or disagree because I did not express my opinion, but you fell free to disagree with the idea.
About this sentence quoting : "Does this realm relate to the project management space that we normally discuss on this platform"
The discussions that we could bring here are not limited by normally, certainly this theme is better then asking how to obtain a badge or saying that a link is not opening and more intellectual enrichment.
This is not the center of the world, there are other project management thinkers from other quadrants , IPMA, PRINCE, PM square with value and very good professionals , in the end all are trying to improve the professional skills and methods of managing a project to achieve success, so I read from all sources.
The article was published with the Sponsorship of IPA and IPMA, and as I am an open minded person like to read all thoughts being from PMI or others. I Found the theme interesting enough to promote a discussion in this network, I apologise is this discussion is not appropriate for this platform.
The discussion is absolutely appropriate for this platform! I was responding to your statement that “they are referring to ALL projects.” So, I was trying to give “validity in context.”
Bottom Line: I appreciate the ideas and thoughts you share on the platform!
Apparently I made a wrong understanding of your words, sorry by that.
About the validity of context In my understanding about the article , that is extensive is almost a book, they analysed both development projects and standard projects, in the end they extrapolated the results for all projects, if you want to know my sincere option, I liked the ideas in the article, but I have doubts as to whether the stamping is valid for all projects because they valued more the results obtained from the development projects, at least that was my perception.
I think its abit of 'ba humbug' with someone expressing an opinion based on the visibility of projects they have been told to look at in order to formulate that opinion. There are many different methodologies that can be applied to a project so that they are not "narrowly conceived, too goal-achievement oriented, and excessively rigid". It about who applies them (their level of expereince) and how they are applied. Methodologies such as agile are designed in such a way as to over this said failings. It would be interesting to know what projects they are referring to and if they made it onto any list.
Please login or join to reply